AM electromagnetic waves: astronomically-high modulation frequency on an astronomically-low carrier

[Radium]

Hi:

Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question.

I have a very weird question about electromagnetic radiation,
carriers, and modulators.

Is it mathematically-possible to carry a modulator signal with a
frequency of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 gigacycles
every 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond and
an amplitude of 1-watt-per-meter-squared on a AM carrier signal whose
frequency is 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000)
nanocycle* every 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 giga-
eons and whose amplitude is a minimum of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaphotons per 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond?

If it is not mathematically-possible, then please explain why.

10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) second is an
extremely short amount of time. 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond is even shorter because a
nanosecond is shorter than a second.

10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 cycles is an extremely
large amount of cycles. 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000
gigacycles is even more because a gigacycle is more than a cycle.

Giga-eon = a billion eons

Eon = a billion years

Gigacycle = a billion cycles.

*nanocycle = billionth of a cycle

Gigaphoton = a billion photons

10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 -- now that is one
large large number.

10^1,000,000,000 = 10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000

So you get:

(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)

10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) = 10^-(10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)-to-the-power-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000)

10^-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000) is an extremely small number at it equals 10-to-
the-power-NEGATIVE-[(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-
to-the-power-1,000,000,000)]

No offense but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
really interested in this.


Thanks,

Radium

 

[John Smith I]

...
Thanks,

Radium

ROFLOL!!!

JS

 

[Eeyore]

Hi:

Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question.

Why not ?

You're a trolling IDIOT.

Graham

 

[RHF]

Hi:

Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question.

I have a very weird question about electromagnetic radiation,
carriers, and modulators.

Is it mathematically-possible to carry a modulator signal with a
frequency of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 gigacycles
every 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond and
an amplitude of 1-watt-per-meter-squared on a AM carrier signal whose
frequency is 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000)
nanocycle* every 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 giga-
eons and whose amplitude is a minimum of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaphotons per 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond?

If it is not mathematically-possible, then please explain why.

10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) second is an
extremely short amount of time. 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond is even shorter because a
nanosecond is shorter than a second.

10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 cycles is an extremely
large amount of cycles. 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000
gigacycles is even more because a gigacycle is more than a cycle.

Giga-eon = a billion eons

Eon = a billion years

Gigacycle = a billion cycles.

*nanocycle = billionth of a cycle

Gigaphoton = a billion photons

10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 -- now that is one
large large number.

10^1,000,000,000 = 10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000

So you get:

(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)

10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) = 10^-(10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)-to-the-power-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000)

10^-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000) is an extremely small number at it equals 10-to-
the-power-NEGATIVE-[(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-
to-the-power-1,000,000,000)]

No offense but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
really interested in this.

Thanks,

Radium

 

[RHF]

ROFLOL!!!

JS

 

[RHF]

Why not ?

You're a trolling IDIOT.

Graham

 

[K7ITM]

Hi:

Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question.

I have a very weird question about electromagnetic radiation,
carriers, and modulators.

Is it mathematically-possible to carry a modulator signal with a
frequency of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 gigacycles
every 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond and
an amplitude of 1-watt-per-meter-squared on a AM carrier signal whose
frequency is 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000)
nanocycle* every 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 giga-
eons and whose amplitude is a minimum of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaphotons per 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond?

If it is not mathematically-possible, then please explain why.

10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) second is an
extremely short amount of time. 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond is even shorter because a
nanosecond is shorter than a second.

10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 cycles is an extremely
large amount of cycles. 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000
gigacycles is even more because a gigacycle is more than a cycle.

Giga-eon = a billion eons

Eon = a billion years

Gigacycle = a billion cycles.

*nanocycle = billionth of a cycle

Gigaphoton = a billion photons

10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 -- now that is one
large large number.

10^1,000,000,000 = 10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000

So you get:

(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)

10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) = 10^-(10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)-to-the-power-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000)

10^-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000) is an extremely small number at it equals 10-to-
the-power-NEGATIVE-[(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-
to-the-power-1,000,000,000)]

No offense but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
really interested in this.

Thanks,

Radium

AM = k*(1+f(t))*cos(w*t+theta) Eqn. 1

where k is the desired carrier amplitude
f(t) is the modulating signal, scaled so that negative peaks are
greater than -1
w is the radian carrier frequency
t is time
theta is whatever carrier phase offset you want; a constant.

Now you go figure it out. Is there anything in your incomprehensible
problem statement that can't be accommodated by Eqn. 1? Actually
accomplishing it is left as an exercise for you to spend the rest of
your life on.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question.

Why? Would you expect facts to change if I were annoyed or offended?

If it is not mathematically-possible, then please explain why.

Oh, that's easy. The worlds supply of zeros, nulls, and comma
separators is strictly limited. The galactic supply of such things
were created by the big bang and are not being made any more. If you
consume a substantial number of zeros, the zeros must be borrowed from
somewhere. While it is mathematically possible to bury the reader in
zeros, it is ecologically incorrect to do so. Also, be advised that
the government budget and trade deficits have cornered the supply of
zeros, and may soon approach an astronomical accumulation of zeros. At
the present rate of zero depletion, you may soon be forced to use
large exponentials, in order to avoid consuming zeros.

No offense

Would defense be acceptable?

but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
really interested in this.

There are about 10^80 particles in the universe. Do with them as you
please but do save the zeros for those that need them.

 

[RHF]

Why? Would you expect facts to change if I were annoyed or offended?


Oh, that's easy. The worlds supply of zeros, nulls, and comma
separators is strictly limited. The galactic supply of such things
were created by the big bang and are not being made any more. If you
consume a substantial number of zeros, the zeros must be borrowed from
somewhere. While it is mathematically possible to bury the reader in
zeros, it is ecologically incorrect to do so. Also, be advised that
the government budget and trade deficits have cornered the supply of
zeros, and may soon approach an astronomical accumulation of zeros. At
the present rate of zero depletion, you may soon be forced to use
large exponentials, in order to avoid consuming zeros.


Would defense be acceptable?


There are about 10^80 particles in the universe. Do with them as you
please but do save the zeros for those that need them.

--
Jeff Liebermann [email protected]
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[m II]

There are about 10^80 particles in the universe. Do with them as you
please but do save the zeros for those that need them.

an a-null-ment is in order.




mike

 

[RHF]

an a-null-ment is in order.

mike

 

[Sal M. Onella]

No offense but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
really interested in this.

Didn't you pull something like this crap in the sci.engr.television.advanced
newsgroup a few years ago? The correct anwer then and now is that the
output signal is the modulating signal with a slow phase change impressed on
it proportional to the instantaneous amplitude of the carrier. Think
"rotating vector."

No further replies forthcoming, as my troll-o-meter is edging into the red
zone.

 

[Mike Kaliski]

Hi:

Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question.

I have a very weird question about electromagnetic radiation,
carriers, and modulators.

Is it mathematically-possible to carry a modulator signal with a
frequency of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 gigacycles
every 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond and
an amplitude of 1-watt-per-meter-squared on a AM carrier signal whose
frequency is 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000)
nanocycle* every 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 giga-
eons and whose amplitude is a minimum of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaphotons per 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond?

If it is not mathematically-possible, then please explain why.

10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) second is an
extremely short amount of time. 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond is even shorter because a
nanosecond is shorter than a second.

10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 cycles is an extremely
large amount of cycles. 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000
gigacycles is even more because a gigacycle is more than a cycle.

Giga-eon = a billion eons

Eon = a billion years

Gigacycle = a billion cycles.

*nanocycle = billionth of a cycle

Gigaphoton = a billion photons

10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 -- now that is one
large large number.

10^1,000,000,000 = 10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000

So you get:

(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)

10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) = 10^-(10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)-to-the-power-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000)

10^-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000) is an extremely small number at it equals 10-to-
the-power-NEGATIVE-[(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-
to-the-power-1,000,000,000)]

No offense but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
really interested in this.


Thanks,

Radium

Radium

The answer is no. It takes a finite time for even so called 'instantaneous'
quantum interactions to occur, so the frequencies quoted are a nonsense.
Essentially frequencies above around 10 ^ 30 Hz may (as) well not exist. I
am probably a few orders of magnitude out here, but that is the general
idea.

For a detailed explaination see "The Road to Reality: A complete Guide to
the Laws of the Universe by Roger Penrose - ISBN 0739458477". Available from
Amazon and all good booksellers. Mr. Penrose has collaborated with some of
the greatest theoretical mathamaticians and physicists of the last fifty
years and if you can follow the maths, all will become clear. This book will
explain a lot of the maths required anyway, so worth giving it a go.

Most mathematicians prefer to simplify equations by removing superfluous
zeroes and exponents by cancellation on either side of the equation.

Mike G0ULI

 

[Cecil Moore]

For a detailed explaination see "The Road to Reality: A complete Guide to
the Laws of the Universe by Roger Penrose - ISBN 0739458477".

Mike, does he say anything about quantum entanglement?

 

[Martin]

< snip >




Didn't you pull something like this crap in the sci.engr.television.advanced
newsgroup a few years ago? The correct anwer then and now is that the
output signal is the modulating signal with a slow phase change impressed on
it proportional to the instantaneous amplitude of the carrier. Think
"rotating vector."

No further replies forthcoming, as my troll-o-meter is edging into the red
zone.

Your troll-o-meter is defective, it should be pegged hard in the red
zone.
Please have it recalibrated to a proper sensitivity.

 

[Mike Kaliski]

Mike, does he say anything about quantum entanglement?

Cecil

Yes indeed he does. This book is about as leading edge as it gets. The
author has worked closely with Stephen Hawking and people of similar
academic credentials. It doesn't get any better than that.

It is clear from reading this book that we have reached a plateau in our
capability of understanding how the universe works and we need to await the
arrival of new technology and techniques to be able to test the latest
theories. The theory has outstripped the technology for the time being.

Mike G0ULI

 

[RHF]

Cecil

Yes indeed he does. This book is about as leading edge as it gets. The
author has worked closely with Stephen Hawking and people of similar
academic credentials. It doesn't get any better than that.

It is clear from reading this book that we have reached a plateau in our
capability of understanding how the universe works and we need to await the
arrival of new technology and techniques to be able to test the latest
theories. The theory has outstripped the technology for the time being.

Mike G0ULI

? . . .

 

[RHF]

an a-null-ment is in order.

mike

.. . . ? . . .

 

[RHF]

< snip >




Didn't you pull something like this crap in the sci.engr.television.advanced
newsgroup a few years ago? The correct anwer then and now is that the
output signal is the modulating signal with a slow phase change impressed on
it proportional to the instantaneous amplitude of the carrier. Think
"rotating vector."

No further replies forthcoming, as my troll-o-meter is edging into the red
zone.

.. . . ? . . .

 

[RHF]

Your troll-o-meter is defective, it should be pegged hard in the red
zone.
Please have it recalibrated to a proper sensitivity.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.. . . ? . . .